#2
The Bee's satire aside, it is quite amazing that the Left want to allow children to make sex change decisions but these same individuals need to be age 21 to buy smokes and alcohol...and drive a tractor-trailer.
And people out there claim to have hope in America? This country is just soooooo done.
[American Thinker] How have we gone from America’s low-inflation, high tax revenue, full employment economy, with an expanding middle class, energy independence and rock solid military to the kowtowing disaster of the last two years?
The only possible conclusion is that this is a long-term and well-planned operation to kneecap America.
Accepting that the most prosperous nation on earth is suddenly falling into poverty, crime and wokeness, and our citizens are happily voting for more, requires a level of insane thinking that is unprecedented, yet we now have...
Ballot counting machines that can’t count ballots
Judges who refuse to judge
Anti-American American presidents
Prosecutors who don’t prosecute
Peaceful protests labeled as domestic terrorism and
domestic terrorists labeled as peaceful protestors
Representatives who don’t represent
Corporations that don’t seek profit
Banks that don’t protect their depositors’ money
News reporters who don’t report the news
"Environmentalist" energy policies that waste energy and harm the environment
Scientists who don’t use the scientific method
Teachers who don’t teach, advocating graphic books on sex for children too young to understand sex
Psychologists and physicians encouraging dysphoria insanity in vulnerable children — while keeping parents clueless
Men playing women’s sports and assaulting girls in their locker rooms
Doctors who don’t heal, promoting vaccines that kill
Groups demanding reparations from people whose ancestors mistreated their ancestors
Free speech that isn’t free
Americans are kind, patient, generous people who want to live our lives, raise our families, do our jobs or run our businesses, pray — or not, and be left alone. Because we believe in fairness and free speech we are willing to tolerate the speech of others — even if we think it’s crazy or offensive. We recognize that we are not perfect and we acknowledge that our country isn’t perfect, especially our past.
Most of us still have a basic understanding of civics and believe that our representative government and our right to vote are the cornerstone of American greatness. When something goes wrong there are laws that all are required to follow and a judicial system that impartially enforces those laws.
#2
A few other markers of a growing insanity:
-Having borders that are sieves.
-No accountability for criminality in and out of government.
-Endless wars.
-Ceding sovereignty to globalists.
-Media that is basically propaganda.
-Lawfare.
-Weaponization of government.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Sergey Khudiev
[REGNUM] A recent piece by Professor Sergei Karaganov, in which he proposes to intimidate the West with the increasingly likely use of nuclear weapons, was just one of many publications calling for "returning fear" and making enemies tremble before nuclear war.
As, for example, Karaganov writes, “it can even go as far as warning compatriots and all people of good will about the need to leave their places of residence near objects that could become targets of nuclear strikes in countries that provide direct support to the Kiev regime. ”
The idea that it is necessary to strike fear into the West, and for this to demonstrate a willingness to use nuclear weapons or even to use them in practice, is in the summer air. However, talk about lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons has a number of effects, which, alas, pass over the attention of many authors of such appeals.
It is assumed that the threat of the use of nuclear weapons will induce the West to abandon support for Ukraine and generally force it to lower the level of its claims to world domination.
The reaction of Western elites is hard to predict, but what if deterrence doesn't work? Will Russia go for the real use of nuclear weapons, inviting a retaliatory strike, or quietly back down, making its further threats unconvincing?
But besides Western elites, nuclear deterrence has another audience - its own citizens. Perhaps an undesirable audience: if it were possible to scare the Western elites and the population so that their own remained in blissful ignorance, this would be very convenient.
But in our time, it is impossible to catch up with nuclear fear on strangers, without at the same time catching it on our own. Any nuclear rhetoric directed at the West will inevitably be broadcast inside the country, which is already partly happening.
And within the country, this will lead (and is already leading, albeit on a moderate scale) to a number of effects that are difficult to recognize as desirable. People who call for "lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons" are simply framing the Russian leadership. And that's why.
First, in order to trust their leadership, citizens must trust that political elites care about their lives and well-being.
The message that is conveyed (consciously or not) by nuclear intimidation is that the life and well-being of citizens is a gamble. Those who go for it, in fact, argue that the authorities are quite ready to risk the mass, if not universal, death of their citizens in the course of a nuclear conflict.
Think about how you would react to some people gambling on your family's life. Like, if we win, then it’s good, live on, and if not, then your loved ones will die a cruel death.
A threat is effective when it is plausible, and it turns out to be plausible not only for strangers, but also for our own. Not only strangers hear: “we pose a threat to your very existence and are ready to carry out this threat,” but their own hear the same thing.
The political leadership in this case will appear as people who are ready to expose the inhabitants of Russian cities to a retaliatory nuclear strike. And this, in turn, encourages citizens to see leadership as a mortal danger to themselves and their loved ones.
People are usually not inclined to give trust and obedience to those who gamble on the lives of their children. Such players can cause strong and sincere hatred. Fear of nuclear war thus undermines the most important foundation of civil peace and stability - trust in the government, the readiness to proceed from the fact that it cares about the life and well-being of people.
Another tool of power - punishment for an offense - is also significantly weakened. A person who is intimidated by the expectation of nuclear war is difficult to keep within the bounds of the law by the threat of a fine or even a prison sentence. After all, radioactive ashes do not need money, and who will plant him, he is ashes.
Moreover, this mistrust, hatred and fear will cover not only ordinary people who live in cities that, as a result of an unsuccessful gambling game, can fly into, but also some part of the representatives of the elite itself, who also do not have a spare planet.
Threatening gestures “Yes, we are generally terrible people, we don’t feel sorry for anyone,” shown to a Western audience, can be taken quite seriously by their own. And the thought cannot but come to her mind that my children will not grow up to be fat and better in a world where Russia will be less powerful than they will die in a nuclear war.
This intimidation turns the citizens against the elite, and parts of the elite against each other, and does it really effectively. Not like frankly stupid enemy orders about palaces and "fur coats".
The vast majority of people simply do not care if the elite lives in luxury. Well, probably, he lives, but he doesn't bother us. But the informational pressure “the elites are ready to plunge you all into a nuclear war” will be difficult for people not to notice.
The more people believe in the readiness of the top elite to unleash a nuclear war, the more they will grow willing to take the most desperate actions to prevent it.
Another important psychological aspect is that in the face of confrontation and a tough economic race, people need positive motivation. We and our country have a future for which people study, invent, build and, most importantly, give birth and raise children.
This requires a positive image of the future, in which these children will be alive, the buildings will stand, and the country in general will not be a radioactive desert.
Nuclear intimidation destroys this motivation. Such intimidation, even if it does not end in a real nuclear war, will significantly undermine the internal stability of the country.
It is this effect that should be taken into account, perhaps, in the first place.
[Epoch Times] The U.S. Marine Corps is doubling down on integrating advanced technologies into its warfighting concepts to better counter power rivals such as China, according to the highest-ranking Marine officer. As a result, the Marine Corps will need to take on more risk to ensure greater battlefield rewards, according to Gen. David Berger, the commandant of the Marine Corps.
"It’s not necessarily the embracing of new ideas that’s hard. It’s letting go of the old," Berger said during a June 13 talk with The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "We have to accept risk in certain areas and move very quickly if we’re going to stay in front."
Berger’s comments focused on the ongoing implementation of Force Design 2030, a program begun in 2020 with the goal of preparing the Marine Corps for a naval war against major adversaries such as China.
Chinese naval forces greatly outnumber the U.S. Navy in terms of surface combatants.
The United States has nearly 300 warships, though only about a third of that force might be available on any given day, and that third is spread across the entire globe. Only about 60 U.S. warships are deployed in the Indo-Pacific region.
A majority of China’s 350-strong fleet, meanwhile, is stationed within 300 miles of the country. That number rises to more than 600 vessels if the Chinese coast guard and maritime militia forces are counted.
Should a war break out in the Indo—Pacific, that means the United States would be starting at a sizable disadvantage.
According to Berger, naval power will only become more vital to ensuring the national interest in the coming decade, and the U.S. Marines will be central to that effort.
"Submarines, aircraft carriers, amphibious forces. Those three categories are what great naval powers have to have in order to protect their national interests," Berger said. "We need to go back to our naval roots and be naval. Not because it’s our roots, but because that’s how we’re most effective."
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/15/2023 08:05 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Commies
#2
"We need to go back to our naval roots and be naval..." Oh, sure. In the emerging age of robotics and missile technology let's return to our naval roots.
#6
The US Marine Corps doesn't want to be carved up like a thanksgiving turkey by the Pentagon bureaucrats. The Iron Law of (Pentagon) Budgets is that the Army, the Navy and the Air Force each gets a third of the pie -- this makes life quieter for the REMFs because they don't have to fight for each program as hard. The USMC as a "combined arm force" had toys the other services claimed control of: the USAF's airplanes and the Army's tanks. The Navy has historically been willing to fight for USMC airplanes, but the others...
#7
Berger needs to re-read the Wake Island experience on what happens to small, cut-off defensive units once isolated and assaulted. In trying to be meore "naval" he is asking for smaller, amphib transport vessels for the China-centric EABO concept described below.
"The Navy’s Medium Landing Ship (LSM) program, previously called the Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) program, envisions procuring a class of 18 to 35 new amphibious ships to support the Marine Corps, particularly in implementing a new Marine Corps operational concept called Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO)"...
"The EABO concept was developed with an eye toward potential conflict scenarios with China in the Western Pacific. Under the concept, the Marine Corps envisions, among other things, having reinforced-platoon-sized Marine Corps units maneuver around the theater, moving from island to island, to fire anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) and perform other missions so as to contribute, alongside Navy and other U.S. military forces, to U.S. operations to counter and deny sea control to Chinese forces. The LSMs would be instrumental to these operations, with LSMs embarking, transporting, landing, and subsequently reembarking these small Marine Corps units."
#8
I don’t think the quantity of Chinese ships is any more decisive than a Vietnam era body count was. Iran may also have more ships than we do. Iranian naval ships would mostly be Boghammard and dhows. It fits their strategy, but their navy is demonstrably not a match for ours.
We would love a Chinese naval strategy if it called for them to duke it out with us ship to ship. In reality, their shore to ship missiles and drones would be a more significant threat. I don’t think their sub contingent will be decisive. If there was a war, I expect that we would lose some ships, but for them to lose most of their ships. It would not be Praying Mantis, nor would it be Midway. If the Chinese were to try an amphibious take over of Taiwan, I would expect that few troops would land alive unless Taiwan and the US succumbed to the most significant threat, Chinese infiltration of our governments and military.
As for the Marine Corp tanks, they were somewhat useful in both Iraq wars. I am not sure where the planners see the Marines being used in the future. Hopefully, Milley’s plan to invade Iran was retired with him. If he has not retired yet, let’s expedite that paperwork.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
06/15/2023 12:27 Comments ||
Top||
[PJ] As soon as the federal indictment of President Trump was unsealed, we were treated to stories featuring photos of "boxes of documents" stored in various rooms at Mar-a-Lago — including boxes in places like on the stage in the White and Gold Ballroom, and even in a bathroom:
Like the photos from the raid showing classified documents splayed out on the floor, these photos created a certain impression with the public. Just look at how many boxes there are! Look where they were put! Dozens of boxes all over the place, where anyone could get them.
But as Newsmax host Greg Kelly pointed out, it’s "a scam" that’s poisoning the public’s perception of Donald Trump in this case. Why? Because, as Kelly noted, the actual number of classified documents that were found at Mar-a-Lago could fit into one single box, with ample room to spare.
"You don’t have to be a lawyer to look at this and know that it’s a scam," Kelly said. "Number one, in that indictment, they put some pictures in the indictment to scare us. Ooh, look at all these boxes. The classified documents in the boxes. These pictures are actually in the indictment, and there are dozens and dozens of boxes."
#1
Having all that reading material in the bathroom always appeared staged to me. Nobody reads classified documents when they use the bathroom anymore; the play on their cell phones.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
06/15/2023 5:39 Comments ||
Top||
#2
So each 'classified document' (102) didn't get its own box?
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/15/2023 16:34 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Isn't there a law against presenting (or staging) evidence that is false to the grand jury and court?
[American Greatness] The Trump indictment looks like many other federal indictments. Indeed, it is more detailed than most. And it includes salacious and not-completely-surprising anecdotes, which add color and highlight the alleged irresponsibility and carelessness of the former president. On its face, it seems mostly ordinary and legal, although the inclusion of various attorney-client communications is quite unusual.
The thing that you cannot discern from the text is all of the missing subtext.
THE DOGS THAT DIDN’T BARK
There is no mention of the Presidential Records Act, executive privilege, or the fact that the president has the original authority to classify or declassify records. The special counsel cites various executive orders regarding classified documents as binding authority over the president, but these are internal rules for the governance of employees of the executive branch. Logically, they cannot constrain the president.
If the president can make and unmake an executive order at his pleasure, it cannot bind him, regardless of whether an order (or its reversal) is published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Like it or not, the president is the source of authority for these rules—by definition. He cannot be confined in a prison to which he has the keys.
This is why the media conniption over his supposed breach of secrecy in meetings with foreign leaders was always fake. That’s called foreign policy. Foreign policy is the president’s job. He is elected by the people to do it. He can decide what to share, when to share it, with whom and how it will be shared. In this and much else, Trump was never treated as a normal president, nor given the deference an elected president deserves in the exercise of his powers. And that should tell us something about these bureaucrats who were supposed to be reporting to him.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
"It’s not necessarily the embracing of new ideas that’s hard. It’s letting go of the old," Berger said during a June 13 talk with The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "We have to accept risk in certain areas and move very quickly if we’re going to stay in front."
